30 ms·

“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized housing”. So it should be no surprise that they run out of money for it, there is near-unl

“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized housing”. So it should be no surprise that they run out of money for it, there is near-unlimited demand for subsidized housing and can sink any dollar amount into it that you could budget. SF needs to build more dense housing. A lot more. Granting subsidized housing to a tiny minority feels good and maybe is alright as a bandaid, but isn’t ever going to solve the problem in the long run. Build dense, everywhere you can. I sympathize with folks who worry about how it will change their neighbourhoods but not addressing the problems has produced even more negative change. Build build build.

reaperducer 8y ago
“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized housing”. Not exactly. "Subsidized housing" is when the renter or the landlord receive a payment from the government to supplement the rent paid by a renter. "Affordable housing" is a broader umbrella and can also include legal requirements that the landlord set rent rates for a certain percentage of its units at a particular level (often expressed as xx% of the average wage within xx distance from the building). Affordable housing can also include rent control, like the type in New York; and probably other methods I'm unfamiliar with.
- klipt 8y ago
  But specifically in the article, when they talk about a building being "30% affordable", they're talking about subsidized lottery housing. I.e. housing that is below market rate (the developer takes the hit) and is assigned via San Francisco's affordable housing lotteries to a small fraction of the people whose income is low enough to qualify.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    the developer takes the hit I think it's a difference in philosophy. Again, I can't speak about SFO, because my experience in this space is mostly Chicago. Your assertion seems to be that the developers "take the hit" as if the development/building is an island unto itself. The city's view is that the development/building is part of a community and should contribute to the community and integrate with it. That's why in Chicago it is very common for a new building to fix up the neighborhood it's in, as part of the privilege of locating in Chicago. 400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for three or four or five blocks around. In addition, if the developer wants extra height, that can be purchased in exchange for contributions to the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, or a fund to preserve historic buildings. Again, it's a difference in philosophy. "Us vs them," versus becoming a contributing part of the neighborhood community.
    - RhysU 8y ago
      > 400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for three or four or five blocks around. A city should set its property and income taxes such that it can (a) maintain parks and (b) maintain intersections without requiring ransom from new developers. Because what happens to the parks and intersections when no new developers want to come? Also, "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay" is some corrupt (or at least corruptible) government.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        maintain parks It’s not a park to be maintained. It’s a formerly radioactive wasteland. "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay" It’s not a one-off tax. It’s codified, and every developer gets to choose if it wants to make these payments or not. If the developer doesn’t want to pay, then it is welcome to build within the zoning established a half century ago, and it won’t even be subject to Plan Commission review. If the developer wants an extra 30 stories beyond the current zoning, then it can pay for that by contributing to the community that it is going to impact with increased traffic, infrastructure, and demand for services.
- pound 8y ago
  it's sort of the same, it's just that subsidy comes not from government but from those who pays for remaining units. Difference in price will have to be covered by some source.

reaperducer 8y ago

“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized housing”. Not exactly. "Subsidized housing" is when the renter or the landlord receive a payment from the government to supplement the rent paid by a renter. "Affordable housing" is a broader umbrella and can also include legal requirements that the landlord set rent rates for a certain percentage of its units at a particular level (often expressed as xx% of the average wage within xx distance from the building). Affordable housing can also include rent control, like the type in New York; and probably other methods I'm unfamiliar with.

klipt 8y ago
But specifically in the article, when they talk about a building being "30% affordable", they're talking about subsidized lottery housing. I.e. housing that is below market rate (the developer takes the hit) and is assigned via San Francisco's affordable housing lotteries to a small fraction of the people whose income is low enough to qualify.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  the developer takes the hit I think it's a difference in philosophy. Again, I can't speak about SFO, because my experience in this space is mostly Chicago. Your assertion seems to be that the developers "take the hit" as if the development/building is an island unto itself. The city's view is that the development/building is part of a community and should contribute to the community and integrate with it. That's why in Chicago it is very common for a new building to fix up the neighborhood it's in, as part of the privilege of locating in Chicago. 400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for three or four or five blocks around. In addition, if the developer wants extra height, that can be purchased in exchange for contributions to the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, or a fund to preserve historic buildings. Again, it's a difference in philosophy. "Us vs them," versus becoming a contributing part of the neighborhood community.
  - RhysU 8y ago
    > 400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for three or four or five blocks around. A city should set its property and income taxes such that it can (a) maintain parks and (b) maintain intersections without requiring ransom from new developers. Because what happens to the parks and intersections when no new developers want to come? Also, "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay" is some corrupt (or at least corruptible) government.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      maintain parks It’s not a park to be maintained. It’s a formerly radioactive wasteland. "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay" It’s not a one-off tax. It’s codified, and every developer gets to choose if it wants to make these payments or not. If the developer doesn’t want to pay, then it is welcome to build within the zoning established a half century ago, and it won’t even be subject to Plan Commission review. If the developer wants an extra 30 stories beyond the current zoning, then it can pay for that by contributing to the community that it is going to impact with increased traffic, infrastructure, and demand for services.
pound 8y ago
it's sort of the same, it's just that subsidy comes not from government but from those who pays for remaining units. Difference in price will have to be covered by some source.